The Boys Scouts of America has been built upon the values of faith and family for more than 100 years and today’s decision contradicts generations of tradition in the name of political correctness. While I will always cherish my time as a scout and the life lessons I learned, I am greatly disappointed with this decision.

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/05/texas-gov-rick-perry-an-eagle-scout-greatly-disappointed-with-boy-scouts-gay-ban-lift/feed/0“This is Not a Test” Intellectual Froglegs #28http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/05/this-is-not-a-test-intellectual-froglegs-28/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/05/this-is-not-a-test-intellectual-froglegs-28/#commentsSun, 12 May 2013 03:48:33 +0000http://www.conservativedailynews.com/?p=89448Joe Dan Gorman is back, and this time he’s tackling gays, and ObamaCare. Well, maybe that’s a poor choice of words, since there’s no way we’d see him playing around with gays, and there’s no easy way to topple the evil medical menace. But, either way, it’s worth watching!

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/05/this-is-not-a-test-intellectual-froglegs-28/feed/0The 405 Radio Interview with Lee Stranahanhttp://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/the-405-radio-interview-with-lee-stranahan/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/the-405-radio-interview-with-lee-stranahan/#commentsTue, 09 Oct 2012 20:25:46 +0000http://www.conservativedailynews.com/?p=69693
What happens when you let Lee Stranahan talk freely on-air about Occupy, Pigford, Attorney General Holder, and Twitter Wars? John Grant and Liz Harrison found out on The 405 Radio on Saturday, October 6th. If you missed it live, catch the podcast (on iTunes), and hear Lee explain what he’s been working on for the past couple years.

Then catch hour two, where Liz, Mike from LoudmouthElephant.com, and Wayne Dupree (NewsNinja2012) do a final wrap-up on the debate, talk about NAACP backing away from Obama, and BSA denying the Eagle Award to a “open gay scout.”

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/the-405-radio-interview-with-lee-stranahan/feed/0Another Nail In Perry's Coffin…http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/12/another-nail-in-perrys-coffin/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/12/another-nail-in-perrys-coffin/#commentsWed, 07 Dec 2011 20:48:15 +0000http://conservativedailynews.com/?p=29632I came across a Rick Perry ad today that stopped me in my tracks, and not for any of the good reasons. At first glance, it seems like it might be another good TV spot for the candidate from Texas. It starts off with optimistic music and Perry looking like a seasoned man from America’s heartland. He’s standing by a quiet river, and he begins with a proclamation that he’s “not ashamed to admit that he’s a Christian”. So far so good… Then his next statement kind of derails things. Take a look…

Look… I know that this statement will speak to the hearts of many Americans, but Perry really shouldn’t have added the line about “gays serving openly in the military”. I think he had a good ad on his hands without the addition of that statement. And to be honest with you, I’m not at all sorry for him for any heat this might bring upon his campaign.

This is a year where Republicans have an honest chance to unseat the current president, and that’s saying a lot, considering how dire the GOP’s hand was in 2008. Commercials like this do nothing to bolster those chances, however, and I’m ashamed of Perry for putting this line in there.

Now, I know that Perry has been gaining support on this website, and that I’ll draw the ire of many of our readers for pointing this out, but if you WANT Perry to be the next president of the United States, ads like this do not help. Whether it is fair or not, Republicans are known for being “against the gays”. How does this ad help to change that perception? It doesn’t. It only “reaffirms” what many have suspected about Republicans all along.

Also… it was a good ad without that line. Perry looked good, he sounded good, the production values were solid, and his message was fine. Adding the line about gays serving openly in the military did nothing to improve or embellish it. It was foolish, and it was the opposite of helpful.

This isn’t the first time that Perry has disappointed me, nor is it the first time that he’s “stepped in it”, but after enough occurrences, these things start to look like nails in his coffin.

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/12/another-nail-in-perrys-coffin/feed/0Gay Liberal Rep. Barney Frank Calls it Quits: Good Riddancehttp://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/gay-liberal-rep-barney-frank-calls-it-quits-good-riddance/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/gay-liberal-rep-barney-frank-calls-it-quits-good-riddance/#commentsTue, 29 Nov 2011 11:27:22 +0000http://conservativedailynews.com/?p=28535After 32 long years of representing Massachusetts District 04 in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Barney Frank has announced he will not be running for reelection in 2012. The openly gay Liberal (see fake Democrat) says his new district lines would force him to campaign aggressively, a task his 71 year old body may not be up to handling any longer. With the other half of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, Chris Dodd out in California working as a stealth lobbyist for the Hollywood motion picture association, now both [supposed] financial reform architects will be far away from DC by the time the real nasty elements of the Dodd-Frank bill start to be enforced in the coming years.

Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

When researching other articles about Frank’s retirement, there was one disgusting pattern of irresponsibility in pushing of the gay lifestyle embedded in many of the so called news articles. Being an effective legislator is one thing, but celebrating someone’s perversions of sexual relationships such as in the same sex lifestyle of Barney Frank, as being supposedly some kind of heroic example for our children to follow is a disgusting bunch of societal manipulation that should be called out every time it rears it’s ugly, perverted head in our society today! While the ignorant puppet-parrots of the left might not mind their children going to sleep with visions of Barney Frank mounting his man-child lover whom worked at Fannie Mae, or vice-versa, as in gay Liberal Barney Frank being mounted by his man-child lover, you sick, demented, perverted parasites of the left need to keep your queer lifestyles out of all of America’s children’s lives and schools. Parents, you need to pay attention more so than ever today. For those of you who want grandchildren from your own bloodlines, maybe you should be teaching your children about how the fact that them giving you authentic grandchildren of your bloodlines and lineage becomes an impossibility when 2 men or 2 women marry each other.

Gay Liberal Barney Frank is getting out of Congress right before many of his Dodd-Frank financial rules take effect. His bed-pal (pun intended) in the Dodd-Frank bill has already high-tailed it out of DC. The Dodd-Frank [supposed] financial reform bill has some nasty elements yet to be exposed, and gay-boy-lover Frank does not want to be around when those facts come to light.The Dodd-Frank {supposed} financial reform, bill did not address the biggest fraud that caused the housing crash of 2008 in the first place: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Progressives everyone-deserves-a-house-regardless-of-
proven-ability-to-pay vote-begging schemes of the 2006-2008 elections. Yes, the Progressive Gay Liberal Barney Frank is finally retiring from Congress.

Good frigging riddance!

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/gay-liberal-rep-barney-frank-calls-it-quits-good-riddance/feed/0R.I.P. Marine Corps – November 10, 1775 – September 20, 2011http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/09/r-i-p-marine-corps-november-10-1775-september-20-2011/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/09/r-i-p-marine-corps-november-10-1775-september-20-2011/#commentsTue, 20 Sep 2011 21:58:06 +0000http://conservativedailynews.com/?p=20613For almost 236 years, the United States Marines has served our country with valor, honor, perseverance and clarity of goal – to preserve and protect the great nation known as the United States and all that live within her. Their heroism is legendary, first in, last to leave. Grunts, jarheads – terms we use affectionately, yet they describe the often unbelievable working conditions and sacrifices these men and women have made throughout the young history of our Republic.

Sadly, today marks a pivotal day in the history of the Corps as well as the other braches of our military. As of 12:01 this morning, the U.S. military officially lifted its ban on homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces

Is the Marine Corps now defunct? No. Will it collapse overnight? No. Will it (and the other forces) cease to be the most powerful in the world? Probably not. Will their efficiency, numbers and dependability fall off because of this? Perhaps – and that is what is of great concern.

There are scarce few, who have opposed homosexuals serving in the military, that would argue that they can’t do as good of job as heterosexuals or that they don’t have a right to defend their country. This isn’t the point.

We live in a society where being counter-culture or going against the norm has not only become popular, but militant. Contrary to rhetoric, atheists have always had the right to be atheists, but it has only been recently that they have begun to beat us over the head with it. The same can be said for certain sects of homosexuals who insist on forcing it onto the public (when most REALLY don’t care one way or another) and insist that we “accept” it as just another “normal” lifestyle.

Aside from the fact that homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is contrary to the procreation of the species, it also is contrary to most of the belief systems of the world. Does our 1st amendment protect the minority? Yes, but one must ask if this protection extends to those who are minority by choice and at this point there is nothing to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic certainty. In essence, it is a choice. We could argue that for a long time – let’s get back to the military implications.

Military experts will tell you that the way to keep casualties down in a conflict is to not just defeat your opponent, but to basically kick the crap out of them in the fastest time possible. The widely lampooned term, “shock and awe” is quite accurate. This is how you get an enemy that swore that we would “swim in our own blood”, to surrender to the nearest camera crew, like what happened in the gulf wars. A fighting force that is just barely the best is going to have a long, protracted, bloody war with their adversary. The body count inevitably will skyrocket.

So it is not enough that we are better than the next guy, it is enough only when we are the best we can possibly be. In other words, if you can’t fully trust the guy in the foxhole with you, more people will die. This may or may not end up being significant in terms of this issue, but consider the cost of being wrong.

The other factor is that of the military being used as a social experiment. Imagine how shocked you may have been after seeing Top Gun in the late 80’s, running out and joining the service for all the wonderful work and educational experience (which is indeed wonderful), only to find out that when crackpots like Saddam Hussein pop up, you may actually have to go to war. Would you find great solace in knowing that your military had been sensitive and politically correct to all of the small, yet noisy minority (by choice) groups out there or the fact that you and the men and women around you had been trained with the best techniques, best instructors and best resources to insure the best possible condition for your safety and the success of the mission at hand?

For as much as the PC crowd has tried to “normalize” it, sexual preference continues to be a deeply dividing issue in the country – and the military. Granted, putting a death date on the Marine Corps at the top of this article was used as an attention getter. The U.S. military is FAR from deceased, but history may show this to be a turning point – good or bad. Only time with tell.

This post does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Conservative Daily News, Anomalous Media, the staff or contributors therein. All opinions expressed are attributed to the author only.

Conservatives have been mistakenly branded intolerant of LGBTQ’s (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer). This is a notion that is far from the truth. Conservatives are not intolerant. We are steadfast in Bible based, natural order, beliefs. The writings of the Bible suggest that it is un-natural and an unacceptable practice to lay with the same sex or dress as the alternate sex. Now, I’m not religious (yes, non-religious Conservatives exist), but I do believe in the Bible and God. I as a Conservative subscribe to the notion that there is a natural order and that the lifestyles of LGBTQ’s go against that order. Now, that being said, it’s none of my business what lifestyle a person chooses to live nor is it anyone elses business what lifestyle I choose to live. I welcome anyone into my circle who shares the same societal values and political views; I’m not concerned with whom they share their bed. I’m not the one to judge, that’s God’s job and who’s to say he thinks I’m doing a good job with my life. I may be at the top of his judgement list.

As for the political aspects, the only issues we as Conservative have with “Gay Rights” (in my opinion) are terminology, politically correct policy (as oppose to majority rule policy) and abuse of policy. Right to marriage is all about terminology. “Marriage” is a sacred oath between a man and woman, as per the Bible verses. A government sanctioned “Civil Union” isn’t in itself a problem. The problem is the abuse of policy. Once the government puts generic/general policy in place to appease a group of people who can’t be narrowed to gender or ethnicity, the lines become very grey and too many people pounce on the opportunity to take advantage. Let’s take into consideration, welfare. Welfare began in the 1930’s with ever so noble intentions. The Great Depression put millions out of work and there grew a desperate cry for assistance. President (FDR) Roosevelt responded with Social Security and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Unfortunately, the original intent of these programs has been lost in a web of legislation which just muddles the system, it’s original intent and allows abuse of the system to run rampant. It’s a knee jerk reaction to an economic problem, run amuck! The system is totally out of control and wrought with abuse.

I would like to start off by stating that I am not a very big sports fan unless it deals with burning rubber and raw exhaust, or preying on delicious animals. I do occasionally take in a ball game, be it baseball, football or even soccer. Yes I do enjoy sitting in my recliner watching TV, so don’t try to yank my man card just yet.

I recently read an article on David Tyree, receiver for the New York Giants, on his stand on gay marriage.

“Nothing means more to me than that my God would be honored. Being the fact that I firmly believe that God created and ordained marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that that’s something that should be fought for at all costs.” – David Tyree

It was very refreshing to see a famous sports figure stand up against the liberals that seem to dominate the sports teams and media. Tyree does not stand alone in the sports arena when it comes to standing for what I also believe is created and ordained by God for a man and a woman. John Smoltz who played baseball for several different teams, and Todd Jones, pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds also stand proud in their beliefs and have not bowed to the political correctness that many stars seem to feel they must submit to. These players have taken a stand while at the same time their teammates are speaking out against them and their views. David Tyree stood proud even when teammate Michael Strahan and Giants co-owner Steve Tisch spoke out in favor of gay marriage.

I would like to applaud Tyree and the other players that have stood up for what is right. We need more role models in sports like David Tyree, John Smoltz and Todd Jones. It is men like these three that are to be admired. As parents, we do not have to worry about what liberal band wagon they may jump on and pass on to our children.

_________________________

For those of you that own firearms, train hard and well and teach those that do not know how.
Be good stewards of the right to bear arms, for we are the last line of defense against tyranny.

-Benjamin Wallace

]]>http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/06/touchdown-and-homerun/feed/0Dear Ann Coulter : How Are Book Sales?http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/06/dear-ann-coulter-how-are-book-sales/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/06/dear-ann-coulter-how-are-book-sales/#commentsTue, 21 Jun 2011 11:49:30 +0000http://conservativedailynews.com/?p=13441Following the New Hampshire GOP debate, Ann Coulter wrote the following in a Townhall article in response to an answer by Ron Paul that the government should not be involved in marriage:

“Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time. So they dodge the tough questions when it suits their purposes by pretending to be Randian purists, but are perfectly comfortable issuing politically expedient answers when it comes to the taxpayers’ obligations under Medicare and Social Security.”

Coulter elaborates a little with Bill O’Reilly:

I am going to start by giving her props for remembering to use the word “most” in her statement so that she could cover her you know what, when she gets publicly called out for being a hypocritical, book pushing sensationalist.. which I am about to do.

Since Ann conveniently forgets to mention the rest of the answer given in the debate, let me fill you in. Ron Paul suggests that marriage should be an issue addressed by State governments, and by the Church. Ann equates all Libertarians with Objectivists (that was the word you were looking for, Ann. Your audience is smart enough to figure out how to Google if they don’t know it), and calls them cowering frauds when it comes to taking a stand on social issues.

I, personally, have a thing for supporting the Tenth Amendment in this country. I also have a thing for the rest of the Constitution. Call me a cowering fraud, but I spend an awful lot of time reminding liberals that they have no right to tell me how to live my life, or how to spend my money. That fact doesn’t change because I don’t like someone else’s decisions. We [Conservatives] have managed to come together from across the entire spectrum of fiscal to social conservatism, to recognize that the Constitution entitles us to make those decisions for ourselves, without the consent of some faceless government entity’s stamp of approval.

Coulter would agree, except where she wouldn’t. According to her, the States and Church are incapable of handling marriage all on their own. They would make terrible decisions that went against Coulter’s definition of morality and that would allow private handling of things like adoption, insurance, inheritance! How can we survive as a country if such things were allowed? She suggests that Libertarians would put an end to “official” marriage. I don’t know about you, but last time I checked, a marriage license was a revenue generating piece of pain in the butt, and marriage was sanctioned by love and God. (By the way, a decidedly Un-Objectivist point of view)

Imagine, allowing marriage to be taken out of the hands of the federal government, completely ignored by the federal lawmakers of this country, and completely handled as an institution of the Church. Why, that would be…. Demonic!

Political Career1977 to 2004- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer with the political campaign consulting firm Dolphin Group
He has worked on 9 presidential campaigns, including serving as a senior consultant on the campaigns of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.
March 23, 2011- Officially announced his candidacy for President 2012

Political ActivismGay Rights Activist
Gay Rights Watchdog
1990’s- Worked for the tobacco industry to prevent smoking bans in California

Political OrganizationsFormed a non-profit organization, Save The Boom, to save a historic gay bar in Laguna Beach California
2008- Formed Californians Against Hate to be a political watchdog group of the major donors and organizations fighting to repeal gay marriage in California through Proposition 8

BoycottsThrough his non-profit organization Californians Against Hate, Mr. Karger published what he calls a “Dishonor Roll” where he calls for a boycott of donors who give more than $5,000 to Proposition 8. There are a total of 4 companies on the boycott list:

Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel

A-1 Self Storage

Bolthouse Farms

Garff Automotive

I am listing these in this article, and I call for a BUYCOTT for these 4 companies to counteract Mr. Karger’s boycott.

Political AccomplishmentsThe first openly gay presidential candidate from a major political party in American history
Mr. Karger was the first to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States on March 23, 2011

Political Affiliation“Independent Republican”- this is the political affiliation Mr. Karger used when he announced on April 10, 2010 at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference that he was “seriously considering becoming a candidate for President of the United States in 2012″
Mr. Krager has defined himself as the “Anti-Romney” candidate, and appears to have an express goal, in his words, to “run a campaign specifically designed to throw a wrench into Romney’s run”

His ReputationIt comes as no surprise that Mr. Karger does not fit into what is commonly identified as a Republican. Steve Scheffler, a delegate from the Iowa, said that Karger is “part of the radical homosexual community”.

Another term used to describe his candidacy is “a long shot”.

One interviewer actually had the backbone to essentially say the real “question on the minds of many is does he think he has a snowball’s chance?” Then the interviewer went on to say, “The answer to that is, yes and no.”

Straw PollsMarch 31, 2011- Mr. Karger won the Saint Anselm College Republicans Presidential Straw Poll in Manchester, New Hampshire by receiving 25% of the vote. He defeated Mitt Romney by just five votes.

EndorsementsEndorsed by Mike Manning, a cast member from The Real World: Washington D.C.

On The IssuesAbortion– Roe v. Wade is the law of the landIf I were remotely leaning towards voting for Mr. Karger this issue alone would knock him out of the running for me. As I stated in another candidate profile, this is one thing I cannot compromise on. If you have read any of my articles regarding mine and my husband’s journey to have a family you will understand why this is an absolute for me. I cannot and will not budge on this issue- ever! Life begins at conception. I cannot vote for someone who believes a woman has a right to choose whether or not she carries life or kills life.

American Spirit– Optimism and getting along Immigration– Let’s Take Action NowEnergy Independence– We must end our dependence on foreign oilEducation– We need to transform education in this countryJobs and Economy– Jobs First: We need to keep jobs in AmericaMarijuana– We should move to legalize and tax marijuanaForeign Policy– Defense, Development and DiplomacyIraq and Afghanistan Wars– Surge out of both countriesMiddle East and Israel– Strong American leadership to help bring a lasting peace in the Middle East Supports Israel– Mr. Karger has stated that his record on issues relating to Israel are comparable with that of Menachim Begin, the former Israeli prime minister and founder of the Likud Party.

In his words, quoting from his official campaign website:

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND QUEER RIGHTSI am the only candidate for president who supports full equality for all Americans

28th Amendment ProposalMr. Karger has proposed a 28th Amendment be added to the United States Constitution that would allow 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. His opinion is that this would encourage younger people to participate in the political process. In his words, from his official campaign website:

“I want to empower our youth”

In an interview with the Huffington Post on February 8, 2011 Mr. Karger states:

“I feel that we should immediately begin discussion and planning to lower the legal voting age in the United States to either 16 or 17 years old.”

“We should then encourage our schools and school districts to teach these young people about elections and the campaigns on the local, state and national level while they are happening.”

I had to catch myself when I was writing this, because I almost dropped my computer I was laughing so hard! Is this man serious? We have seen too many “Man On The Street” interviews where people much older than 16 and 17-years-old have absolutely no clue who Joe Biden is, much less someone like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, or anyone less “recognizable” than the aforementioned people. Oh, everyone recognized Barack Obama- the lame-stream media made sure that the entire world knew him.

Mr. Karger states that we should encourage our schools and school districts to teach them about elections. Are you kidding me? The schools have indoctrinated our children too much as it is, politically! In the 2008 election cycle not one of my children knew who Joe Biden was. Oh, yes, they knew Barack Obama alright! In the infamous words of Sarah Palin, “you betcha” my husband and I informed them of the entire process, who was running and what they stood for. In their classroom elections all but one of my children voted for Barack Obama. This is after us talking on numerous occasions as a family about what we stand for and what is important to us. The power of suggestion and peer pressure is too great to entrust our future to children!

In a day and age when you talk about “The Situation”, people automatically assume you are talking about a a Reality TV show rather than the situation our country is in I think the last thing in the world we need is to have “Generation Me” voting at a younger age! The majority of 18-year-olds are uneducated politically- why add two more years of uneducated votes to the system?

Warped PrioritiesAt the risk of skewing the readers view of Mr. Karger, I am adding a personal heading rather than a “factual” heading to this section.

Mr. Karger has said that his candidacy for the presidency is not so much about winning but rather getting the LDS Church to end its political campaign against same-sex marriage.

Laying aside everything that I disagree politically with Mr. Karger on, to know that the express goal of a person running for the office of leader of the free world is to stop a religious organization from being involved in the political process to have their voice and opinion does not sit well with me. It is quite obvious to me that Mr. Karger is not a conservative. Why he is running on the “Republican” ticket I do not know.

I want a leader who has the best interest of this nation at heart rather than the numerous leaders who have a selfish agenda for running for office. Trying to “hush up and shut down” a religious organization from speaking out against the leftist agenda is not an admirable trait to say the least- especially for a candidate running on the “conservative” ticket.

Time to look at the White House staff to get a clearer picture of what’s behind the policies of this administration. First up, White House Chief of Staff Rahm “deadfish” Emanuel. We will get into the deadfish later. First here’s the WhiteHouse.Gov bio:

Rahm Emanuel is the White House Chief of Staff. Prior to joining President Barack H. Obama’s administration, Emanuel served in the House of Representatives, representing the fifth district of Illinois, and was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. As an advocate for Chicago’s working families, Emanuel served on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees taxes, trade, Social Security, and Medicare issues.

Appointed by then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel served as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 cycle. Under his leadership, Democrats gained 30 seats in the House without losing a single incumbent, and ushered in a new Democratic majority for the first time in more than a decade.

In January 2007, the new majority elected Emanuel to serve as Democratic Caucus Chair, the fourth-highest-ranking member of the House Democratic Leadership. As Chair, Emanuel led the Democratic Caucus in fulfilling its campaign promise to pass legislation reflecting the values and priorities of the American people.

Before being elected to Congress, Emanuel worked at the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He was a core member of the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1998, starting as the national finance director for the 1992 campaign and eventually becoming Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy. In 1989, Emanuel was a senior adviser and chief fundraiser for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s campaign. He also played an important role in Paul Simon’s 1984 campaign for the Senate.

Emanuel graduated from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981 and received a Master’s Degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985. He and his wife, Amy Rule, have three children, Zach, Ilana, and Leah.

Emanuel’s interest in politics began when, as a college undergraduate, he worked on the congressional campaign of Chicago Democrat David Robinson. He proceeded thereafter to work as a fundraiser for a number of successful Illinois candidates before being drafted by the presidential campaign of Arkansas governor Bill Clinton in 1991.

Emanuel proved to be a shrewd tactician for Clinton, urging the latter, during the 1992 New Hampshire primary race, to focus more on fundraising efforts than on campaigning. The money Clinton collected would enable him to run an effective ad campaign aimed at countering the emerging controversies about the candidate’s past adulterous relationships and his draft-dodging activities during the Vietnam War.

Emanuel’s aptitude for fundraising continued to help the Clinton campaign throughout the primaries and into the general election. Of notable importance was Emanuel’s ability to connect with Jewish donors, who contributed heavily to Clinton’s then-unprecedented $72 million war chest. According to political consultant Steve Rabinowitz, “[Emanuel] schmoozed many, many millions all over the country, including money from traditional Democratic Party givers, who are disproportionately Jewish, and new Democratic givers.”

On November 4, 1992 — the night after Clinton had been elected President — Emanuel and other campaign aids convened for a celebratory dinner. At one point in the evening, the discussion turned to the topic of certain individuals who, in the estimation of Emanuel and his cohorts, had somehow betrayed the Clinton cause. One such person was Nathan Landow, a fundraiser who had backed the candidacy of Clinton’s Democrat rival Paul Tsongas. Another was William Donald Schaefer, the Democrat governor of Maryland who had endorsed Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush. In a fit of anger, Emanuel, wielding a steak knife, stood up amidst his dinner companions and proceeded to stab the table repeatedly, screaming: “Nat Landow! Dead!… Bill Schaefer! Dead!…”

During Clinton’s first five years in the White House, Emanuel continued to serve as an aid to the President. Perhaps his most high-profile assignment was as choreographer of the 1993 Rose Garden ceremony following the Oslo Accord, an event that featured the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

Shortly after Clinton’s electoral victory in 1992, Emanuel began pushing the new President to exploit the issue of immigration for his political advantage. Heeding Emanuel’s advice, in September 1994 Clinton met with Daniel Solis, president of the Chicago-based United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), a Hispanic advocacy group. Solis told Clinton that if he could somehow swiftly naturalize the ever-growing number of non-citizen immigrants residing in the U.S., he would have a “great opportunity” to increase the pool of potential voters who might support his re-election bid in 1996. Clinton instructed Solis to stay in contact with Emanuel on this matter; Solis and Emanuel soon coordinated a scheme — which was titled “Citizenship USA” and was headquartered in Vice President Al Gore’s office — to fast-track the naturalization process for both legal and illegal immigrants before the 1996 election. According to one INS security official:

“The goal was to speed up the process and turn as many legal residents and illegals into Clinton voters as possible…. Rahm was doing it under the guise of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government program. He [Emanuel] was definitely the point man and was past his neck in the scandal at INS…. He got every rule changed in the hiring of adjudicators so they could naturalize more Mexican nationals to vote for Bill Clinton, not to mention getting the rules changed to naturalize anyone [regardless of their immigration status or criminal history]…. They had immigration ceremonies at stadiums with DNC (Democratic National Committee) staff registering them as voters right there.”

At one Chicago ceremony held inside the Soldier Field football stadium, approximately 11,000 new citizens were sworn in en masse.

A former INS district director, William Carroll, stated that in March 1996 he and his colleagues had been given “marching orders” to naturalize as many new citizens as possible in advance of the November election, even in the absence of criminal and national security background checks of the applicants.

INS deportation officer Tom Conklin concurred that he and other agents had been pressured to approve the citizenship applications of immigrants “with two or three arrests for crimes like burglary.”

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine subsequently conducted an investigation of Emanuel’s role in the citizenship scheme. Fine concluded that “the INS had compromised the integrity of naturalization adjudications as a result of its efforts to process applicants more quickly and meet a self-imposed goal of completing more than a million cases by the end of fiscal year 1996.” According to Fine, the Clinton administration had followed “inadequate procedures for checking criminal histories and fingerprints.” Fine added that Emanuel had refused his request for an interview.

In 1998 Emanuel left his advisory position at the White House to work as an investment banker at the firm of Wasserstein Perella, where he earned $16.2 million during a two-and-a-half-year stint.

In 2000 Emanuel was again called upon by Bill Clinton, this time to serve on the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). During his tenure on the Board, Freddie Mac was plagued by such major scandals as accounting fraud and illegal campaign contributions to congressional candidates. Emanuel resigned from the Board in 2001.

In 2002 Emanuel ran for public office and was elected as the Democrat Representative for Illinois’ 5th congressional district, easily defeating Republican opponent Mark Augusti.

In January 2005 Emanuel was named Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for the 2006 election season. Such was his success in engineering important victories for the Democratic Party in that year’s mid-term elections, that Illinois Republican Representative Ray LaHood said of Emanuel: “He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them.”

Emanuel’s strategy in 2006 was to focus not only on fundraising, but also on an aggressive propaganda campaign deriding Republicans for such transgressions as their mismanagement of the Iraq War, their allegedly inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, and their scandals involving figures like Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, and Jack Abramoff. Most notably, Emanuel recruited numerous moderate and conservative Democrat candidates — a number of whom were military veterans — to run for election in Southern and Midwestern districts where doctrinaire leftists would have stood little chance of winning.

As a result of the foregoing strategies, Democrats in 2006 gained 30 congressional seats, there by seizing control of the House of Representatives and setting the stage for Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House.

Emanuel was elected Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, making him the fourth highest ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the House.

Emanuel went on to become a close advisor to Senator Barack Obama, particularly during the latter’s run for the White House in 2008. On November 6, 2008, President-elect Obama named Emanuel to serve as his White House Chief of Staff.

Shortly before Obama’s November 4, 2008 election victory, Emanuel had conversations with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff John Harris about who would fill Obama’s vacant Senate seat if Obama were to win the presidency. According to one source, Emanuel gave Harris a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama. The names on the list included Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois—all Democrats. Sometime shortly after the election, Emanuel telephoned John Harris to add the name of Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan to the approved list.

In December 2008 it was revealed that Blagojevich, who was authorized by Illinois law to name a successor to Obama, had been secretly taped telling political confidantes that he was aiming to sell the Senate seat in exchange for campaign cash, a lucrative job, an ambassadorship, or a Cabinet post. After these charges against Blagojevich became public, Emanuel refused to respond to reporters’ questions about any involvement he may have had with the governor’s office over the Senate pick.

In December 2008 it was reported that Emanuel, cognizant of the fact that the economic recession in which America was mired presented an opportunity for the Democratic Party to enact sweeping legislation under the guise of an economic recovery plan, had said the following in a candid moment: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

In February 2009 it was learned that Emanuel had lived rent-free for years in the Capitol Hill townhouse of Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro — and that he had failed to make mention of that fact on any of his financial-disclosure forms, as congressional ethics rules require for such arrangements (which are classified by the IRS as gifts that are subject to taxes).

Following is an overview of Emanuel’s congressional voting record from 2003 through 2008, as per key pieces of legislation covering a wide array of issues.

In February 2004 Emanuel voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which proposed to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman.

In April 2005 and September 2006, Emanuel voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, whose purpose was to prohibit the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without a parent’s (or a legal guardian’s) consent.

In December 2006 Emanuel voted against the Abortion Pain Bill, which mandated that abortion providers, prior to performing an abortion on a fetus older than 20 weeks, inform the mother that: (a) the fetus might feel pain during the procedure, and (b) the use of some pain-reducing drugs may have health risks associated with them.

As a result of his unwavering support for the unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand under any and all circumstances, Emanuel has consistently received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. These ratings indicate that Emanuel’s votes and stated positions on abortion-related matters have mirrored, literally without exception, the positions of these organizations. Indeed, since at least 1995 Emanuel has supported the agendas of Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time.

Gay Marriage

In September 2004 Emanuel voted against a bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriage. In July 2006 he voted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in America exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

TaxesIn May 2003 Emanuel voted against a $350 billion tax cut. This bill contained, among other things, a provision to eliminate the so-called “marriage tax penalty” by making the standard deduction for married couples twice that of a single filer.

In May 2004 he voted against a proposal to extend the alternative minimum tax relief that had been available in 2003 and 2004.

Also in May 2004, he voted against a proposal to make the $1,000-per-child tax credit permanent rather than letting it decline to $700 in 2005. Four months later he voted against another bill calling for a five-year extension on the $1,000 child tax credit.

In October 2004 he voted against a ten-year, $145 billion tax cut for domestic manufacturers and small corporations.

In April 2005 he voted against a proposal to permanently repeal the estate tax.

In November 2005 he voted against a bill calling for a $49.91 billion reduction in federal spending over a five-year period. Twelve months later he voted against a similar five-year proposal for $56.1 billion in federal spending reductions; that bill also called for the retention of a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

In May 2006 he voted against $69.96 billion in tax cuts and credits through 2010, including reductions of 15 percent on capital gains taxes and 5 percent on dividends taxes.

In June 2006 he voted against a proposal to reduce estate taxes beginning in 2010; that proposal would have set the new rates at 15 percent for estates worth up to $25 million, and 30 percent for estates valued at more than $25 million.

The most notable exception to Emanuel’s generally doctrinaire espousal of high taxation occurred in January 2008, when he voted in favor of a bill giving single taxpayers a tax credit of up to $600, and joint filers a tax credit of up to $1,200.

In May 2006 Emanuel voted against a proposal to provide funds for offshore oil exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf; instead, he favored a continuation of President Clinton’s 1998 moratorium on oil drilling.

MortgagesIn September 2007 Emanuel voted in favor of a bill calling on money lenders “to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers.” In other words, he was endorsing subprime loans to under-qualified borrowers—the very practice that eventually would lead to the cataclysmic collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage industry.

Emanuel has received a 100 percent rating from ACORN, the political cult that for many years has played a major role in pressuring banks to make subprime loans.

Military CommissionsIn September 2006 Emanuel voted against a bill authorizing the President to establish military commissions to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror. In Emanuel’s view, such tribunals trample on the civil rights and liberties of defendants who, he contends, should be entitled to all the rights and protections afforded by the American criminal court system—where the standards that govern the admissibility of evidence are considerably stricter than the counterpart standards in military tribunals.

Counter-Terrorism & Homeland Security

In July 2005 Emanuel voted in favor of reauthorizing the post-9/11 anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act.

In September 2006 he voted against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978; this amendment called for allowing the government to use electronic surveillance to investigate suspected terrorist operatives.

In August 2007 he voted against a bill permitting the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to monitor foreign electronic communications which are routed through the United States—provided that the purpose of such monitoring was to obtain “foreign intelligence information” about suspected terrorists. In June 2008 he voted in favor of a bill specifically prohibiting this type of surveillance.

The Center for Security Policy, which is committed to “promoting international peace through American strength,” has given Emanuel ratings ranging, over the years, from 17 percent to 35 percent.

In June 2006 Emanuel voted against a resolution which stated that it was not in America’s national security interest to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, and that a better course of action would be to withdraw the troops only upon the “completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq.”

In February 2007 he voted to disapprove of President Bush’s decision to move ahead with the so-called troop “surge”—the deployment of some 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell the violent insurgents in Iraq.

In May 2007 Emanuel voted in favor a proposal to expedite the transfer of all prisoners currently being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, most of whom are, as Gordon Cucullu writes in The American Enterprise, “not innocent foot soldiers” but rather “Islamic fundamentalists from across the Middle East, rabid jihadists who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of America and Western civilization.”

That same month, Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days.

In July 2007 he voted to begin dramatically reducing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq by April 1, 2008.

In June 2008 he voted in favor of exploring the possibility of impeaching President Bush on grounds that he had lied about U.S. intelligence on Iraq so as to justify the March 2003 American invasion.

In February 2005 he voted against the Real ID Act, which proposed to: set minimal security requirements for state driver licenses and identification cards; require asylum applicants suspected of affiliating with terrorist groups to prove that they are indeed seeking to escape persecution in their homeland; and ensure that physical barriers to prevent illegal immigration would be expeditiously constructed where needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In December 2005 he voted against a bill calling for: the construction of some 700 miles of fencing along America’s southern border; the establishment of a system requiring business owners to verify the legal status of all their employees; the detention of any person attempting to enter the U.S. illegally after October 1, 2006; an increase in the penalties on anyone attempting to smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S.; the annual provision of $250 million to pay state and local police agencies for their assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws; and funding for a program to deport “removable criminal aliens” in prison following the completion of their sentences, rather than releasing them into American communities.

In June 2006 Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment prohibiting the U.S. government from tipping off Mexican officials as to the whereabouts of operatives working for the Minuteman Project, a nonviolent organization of American citizens who alert the U.S. Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in the Southwestern states.

In September 2006 Emanuel again voted against a bill authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico.

That same month, he voted against a proposal to grant state and local officials the authority to investigate, identify, and arrest illegal immigrants.

In April 2003 and again in October 2005, Emanuel voted “No” on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers as punishment for violence that is committed with guns.

Already you can see much of Obama’s political stances and policies in agreement with Rahm Emanuel. The attack on Arizona’s SB1070 seems to be inviting Emanuels previous Immigrant scheme for Democratic voters. He served on the Board of Fannie/Freddie, who are conveniently exempt from Financial Reform and continue to ask for, and recieve, taxpayer funded bailouts. The voting record is also extremely similar.

Here is Rahm Emanuel talking about a mandatory service plan, something Obama also advocated for during his campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=HtDSwyCPEsQ&feature=related

An audio interview on the mandatory service plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=l0B7dOQwKm0&feature=related

Speaking on “Face The Nation” on the future of President Elect Obama in 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Dp3Db90JktY&feature=channel

And here he is at the end of Obama’s first 100 days in office in an intervie w with Katie Couric trying to defend TARP and Obama’s economic policies

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=-gDlzhHBoFg&feature=related

Stay Classy Rahm, a compilation

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=jP22Gb1vC2k&feature=related

So I’d say Rahm Emanuel is a hot headed radical. Tick him off, and if he’s not stabbing the table with a knife chanting your name and die, he just might mail you a decomposing fish. Regardless of your wishes, or your family needs, you will be forced to serve under a mandatory service plan. Illegal Immigrant? No Problem! Just vote Democrat. You can see why Obama has Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, they have similar views, and not one of those views is good for America or Freedom.